THE ELEPHANT IN THE CHURCH a Catholic priest speaks out against homosexual priests

[Brad]

tcay584:

If he is not actively engaged in homosexual activity, then he is not violating any law of God’s. A herosexual priest who engages in extramarital sex is violating God’s law. If a priest is chaste, who cares if he’s attracted to men or women?

Noone does or should care - until they start engaging in sexual acts and/or defend the right to homosexual unions or marriage.

The problem is that today, many have and still do both.

 

[Scout]

Brad:

The fact that you have 3 small children and you are not concerned about deviant homosexuals in the priesthood is quite disillusioning. Please put protection of your children above your ideology for their sake.

Who says I’m not concerned about the sex abuse scandal in the priesthood? And nobody protects my children better than I do. I’m not disillusioned at all. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t make me disillusioned-and I resent the idea. I don’t believe that all homosexuals are deviants. Do I think they should be allowed to be priests? No, I don’t. It goes against Church teachings. I also don’t believe that any priest that defines himself as heterosexual or homosexual should be in the priesthood-because that probably means he isn’t leading a life of celibacy. However, I do believe that just because one is a homosexual, that doesn’t automatically make them a deviant, emotionally unstable, or a pedophile. Are some of them? Yes, but don’t tell me that all of them are, or have the potential to be.

So don’t worry about my children. They’re doing just fine and are being well taken-care of.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[Brad]

Scout:

Who says I’m not concerned about the sex abuse scandal in the priesthood? And nobody protects my children better than I do. I’m not disillusioned at all. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t make me disillusioned-and I resent the idea. I don’t believe that all homosexuals are deviants. Do I think they should be allowed to be priests? No, I don’t. It goes against Church teachings. I also don’t believe that any priest that defines himself as heterosexual or homosexual should be in the priesthood-because that probably means he isn’t leading a life of celibacy. However, I do believe that just because one is a homosexual, that doesn’t automatically make them a deviant, emotionally unstable, or a pedophile. Are some of them? Yes, but don’t tell me that all of them are, or have the potential to be.

So don’t worry about my children. They’re doing just fine and are being well taken-care of.

Scout :tiphat:

My apologies. I had the impression you supported homosexuals in the priesthood. My mistake. Glad your children are in good hands.

 

[tcay584]

Brad:

You have accepted the lies of modern culture. You are disgusted at some deviant sexual practices but think others(homosexual acts) are quite normal. Homosexaul acts are just as unnatural. If you looked at this purely intellectually, you would notice that homosexuals are more likely to be connected to other deviant sexual practices than heterosexuals. Again, this is because they are looking for self-fufillment through a sexaul high - and it can never be achieved this way.

Whoa there! Don’t assume you know my thoughts and beliefs. I have accepted no lies from the popular culture, nor do I dissent from ANY Church teachings. I do not believe homosexuality is a normal behaviour. I don’t believe it is the most hideous form of deviance either. I also do not believe that any of us have a God given right to judge and suck our teeth at others. In my opinion, that is the worse sin. My understanding of this board was that it was to foster debate and discussion among Catholics. If I am only free to argue one perspective, then where’s the debate? I’m not trying to change the Church on this matter, or even say that the Church should change its position. The initial post was asking whether we thought homosexuals should be allowed to become priests. BTW, don’t throw statistics at me. I’ve taken enough courses to know that numbers can be manipulated when context is excluded, and if you will consider this on an intellectual basis, you’d agree with me.

 

[tcay584]

Brad:

Thank you for the definition. It seems that noone likes to define it but many like to say it. I can tell you don’t like to define it by your snide, sarcastic, and critical response.

Anyways, thank you for the definition. Now I will show you that I (and others here) do not fit the definition.

I have a rational concern regarding normalizing homosexual behavior. I have zero fear of homosexuals.

Let’s use proper terminology.

I have no problem with defining it. I’m just annoyed that you would require a definition.
I think you do indeed have an irrational fear that all homosexuals out there are just waiting around a corner to jump you or some other hapless creature who walks by. That’s the impression I get from your posts. All I can go on is your choice of words (harsh) and the “tone” of your posts (harsher). What did you expect me to think?

 

[Brad]

tcay584:

Whoa there! Don’t assume you know my thoughts and beliefs. I have accepted no lies from the popular culture, nor do I dissent from ANY Church teachings. I do not believe homosexuality is a normal behaviour. I don’t believe it is the most hideous form of deviance either. I also do not believe that any of us have a God given right to judge and suck our teeth at others. In my opinion, that is the worse sin. My understanding of this board was that it was to foster debate and discussion among Catholics. If I am only free to argue one perspective, then where’s the debate? I’m not trying to change the Church on this matter, or even say that the Church should change its position. The initial post was asking whether we thought homosexuals should be allowed to become priests. BTW, don’t throw statistics at me. I’ve taken enough courses to know that numbers can be manipulated when context is excluded, and if you will consider this on an intellectual basis, you’d agree with me.

You did yourself in on your last disclaimer. You are still trying to make the case that homosexuals acts are not especially deviant by saying that “numbers can be manipulated.” The numbers say (in homosexual journals) that homosexuals are 7 times more likely to be promiscuous than heterosexuals. It would have to be some context to get down to “1 time” more likely.

Based on these types of numbers, homosexuals should not be priests, as the Church herself teaches.

I don’t know what you are talking about regarding accusing people of sin. I’m simply looking at facts and history, putting the 2 together, and coming to the logical conclusion that homosexual priests in charge of souls of parishoners, students etc - don’t match.

 

[Brad]

tcay584:

I have no problem with defining it. I’m just annoyed that you would require a definition.
I think you do indeed have an irrational fear that all homosexuals out there are just waiting around a corner to jump you or some other hapless creature who walks by. That’s the impression I get from your posts. All I can go on is your choice of words (harsh) and the “tone” of your posts (harsher). What did you expect me to think?

Harsh words and tones are necessary sometimes. Not towards you. But towards the evil underpinnings of the homosexual agenda.

Jesus used harsh words and tone when He said “brood of vipers”, “hypocrites” and “get behind me satan” amongst other similar statements.

I’m sorry but your impression is wrong. I do not fear those that participate in homosexual acts. I would simply appreciate it if those that disagree with our opinon regarding homosexuals in the priesthood would refrain from calling us “homophobes”.

This is a politically derived term, created to neutralize any argument against homosexual unions, marriage, or allowance of homosexuals in authoritative positions over children or young adults.

I am simply exposing the term for it’s incorrectness so that it cannot be used against rational argument.

Is this a harsh objective? I don’t think so. It’s simply reasonable.

 

[Lisa_N]

tcay584:

Whoa there! Don’t assume you know my thoughts and beliefs. I have accepted no lies from the popular culture, nor do I dissent from ANY Church teachings. I do not believe homosexuality is a normal behaviour. I don’t believe it is the most hideous form of deviance either. I also do not believe that any of us have a God given right to judge and suck our teeth at others. In my opinion, that is the worse sin. .

Why? Why has judgement become an anathema? It’s not a perjorative term on its own. We judge people all the time, sometimes to their benefit. If we didn’t judge there would be utter chaos so I get very weary of the self righteous attitude that judging people is self righteous. It’s often a good survival skill.

As to homosexuality, I don’t think most of us are all that worried about people’s PRIVATE behavior. What they do in their bedroom is between them and God. It’s only when the behavior is pushed into the public sphere that you see blowback. Trying to normalize homosexuality, trying to justify ‘boylove,’ forcing school children to learn about abnormal behavior is the point in time when I as well as many people draw the line. Its that hateful? I don’t see how.

tcay584:

I’ve taken enough courses to know that numbers can be manipulated when context is excluded, and if you will consider this on an intellectual basis, you’d agree with me.

What statistics are you disputing? The prevalence of homosexuals who have been perpetrators of sexual abuse of minors? I think it’s pretty clear that the majority are predatory homosexuals, regardless of which study is cited.

I think the reluctance to allow homosexual seminarians and priests is based on our understanding of the nature of the abuse and thus many of us who may not have been concerned about homosexuals (but supposedly chaste) priests in the past are now looking at the potential for harm and being less ‘reasonable.’

Lisa N

 

[tcay584]

Brad:

You did yourself in on your last disclaimer. You are still trying to make the case that homosexuals acts are not especially deviant by saying that “numbers can be manipulated.” The numbers say (in homosexual journals) that homosexuals are 7 times more likely to be promiscuous than heterosexuals. It would have to be some context to get down to “1 time” more likely.

Based on these types of numbers, homosexuals should not be priests, as the Church herself teaches.

I don’t know what you are talking about regarding accusing people of sin. I’m simply looking at facts and history, putting the 2 together, and coming to the logical conclusion that homosexual priests in charge of souls of parishoners, students etc - don’t match.

I’m not trying to say that homosexual acts are not deviant, I’m saying that they are not the epitome of deviance. The statistical reference I made was with regards to the ways in which some studies are flawed. One of the references you gave had to do with homosexuals in San Francisco. San Francisco is one of the most left wing, outrageous places on the face of the planet! That’s like saying I went to a sadism club and found 90% of those attending beat up other people. Well, duh.
I could also argue with your 7 times more likely to be promiscuous statement. I’m sure that heterosexuals who are not in a relationship are many times more likely to be promiscuous than those who are (in a committed relationship). So were these homosexual subjects in a serious relationship, or were they like many “free and easy” heteros who are so happy to sow their wild oats? These are the types of “context” I was referring to. Is the sampling basis the same, or is the study skewed to begin with because the sample subjects are not representative of the whole? This is why I ask for references so I can read the studies and become more educated as to their methods!
I agree with you that a professed, active homosexual should not be a priest, any more than a professed active heterosexual should be. My point is that a homosexual who is devoted to a life of chastity should not be penalized for an inclination that he has no intention of pursuing.

 

[tcay584]

Lisa N:

Why? Why has judgement become an anathema? It’s not a perjorative term on its own. We judge people all the time, sometimes to their benefit. If we didn’t judge there would be utter chaos so I get very weary of the self righteous attitude that judging people is self righteous. It’s often a good survival skill.
Lisa N:

Because the Bible says do not judge lest you be judged. The whole brood of vipers you referred to was because the vipers were casting aspersions on others while they had serious flaws of their own. BTW, just because Jesus said it doesn’t mean you can…He is perfect…we are not, so who are we to judge another person?
Lisa N:

As to homosexuality, I don’t think most of us are all that worried about people’s PRIVATE behavior. What they do in their bedroom is between them and God. It’s only when the behavior is pushed into the public sphere that you see blowback. Trying to normalize homosexuality, trying to justify ‘boylove,’ forcing school children to learn about abnormal behavior is the point in time when I as well as many people draw the line. Its that hateful? I don’t see how.
Lisa N:

You are introducing many more elements here (boylove, etc). I’m not suggesting we normalize homosexuality. I’m just saying don’t demonize the sinner.
Lisa N:

What statistics are you disputing? The prevalence of homosexuals who have been perpetrators of sexual abuse of minors? I think it’s pretty clear that the majority are predatory homosexuals, regardless of which study is cited…
Lisa N:

I also have a problem with predatory homosexuals. The key word is predatory, not homosexual.
Lisa N:

I think the reluctance to allow homosexual seminarians and priests is based on our understanding of the nature of the abuse and thus many of us who may not have been concerned about homosexuals (but supposedly chaste) priests in the past are now looking at the potential for harm and being less ‘reasonable.’

Lisa N

Always better to use less reason. A mind is a terrible thing…it must be stopped.

 

[tcay584]

I have got to get better at imbedding multiple quotes in a post. I just saw my last one and am beginning to feel defeated by this technology. Snarf.

 

[Brad]

tcay584:

I have got to get better at imbedding multiple quotes in a post. I just saw my last one and am beginning to feel defeated by this technology. Snarf.

Now that is just unacceptable!

 

[Lisa_N]

tcay584:

I have got to get better at imbedding multiple quotes in a post. I just saw my last one and am beginning to feel defeated by this technology. Snarf.

It took me a while too. You have to be sure ALL of the little brackets are there. Sometimes when you cut and paste it’s easy to leave off the second bracket and everything morphs together.

As far as the gist of your post, again, I do not understand the minute someone says they do not want homosexual behavior to be normalized, to be taught in schools or to slide toward acceptance of organizations like “NAMBLA” they were ‘demonizing’ all homosexuals. Why is it so hard for people to accept that most of us have a live and let live attitude toward homosexuals? I do. What they do in their spare time in their home is up to them. I do not have any reason to demonize people who are not engaged in demonic activity. Unfortunately the homosexual ACTIVISTS are demonizing anyone who wishes to constrained their unfettered pursuit of normalicy for what most of us think are abnormal acts.

Does this make sense? I do NOT care what Joe and Bob do in their bedroom. Just don’t share with the rest of the world OK?
Lisa N

 

[Brad]

tcay584:

I’m not trying to say that homosexual acts are not deviant, I’m saying that they are not the epitome of deviance. The statistical reference I made was with regards to the ways in which some studies are flawed. One of the references you gave had to do with homosexuals in San Francisco. San Francisco is one of the most left wing, outrageous places on the face of the planet! That’s like saying I went to a sadism club and found 90% of those attending beat up other people. Well, duh.
I could also argue with your 7 times more likely to be promiscuous statement. I’m sure that heterosexuals who are not in a relationship are many times more likely to be promiscuous than those who are (in a committed relationship). So were these homosexual subjects in a serious relationship, or were they like many “free and easy” heteros who are so happy to sow their wild oats? These are the types of “context” I was referring to. Is the sampling basis the same, or is the study skewed to begin with because the sample subjects are not representative of the whole? This is why I ask for references so I can read the studies and become more educated as to their methods!
I agree with you that a professed, active homosexual should not be a priest, any more than a professed active heterosexual should be. My point is that a homosexual who is devoted to a life of chastity should not be penalized for an inclination that he has no intention of pursuing.

I think we agree on most points. However, there are a few things here.

The 7 times more likely was studying non-married or unioned people.

Someone that calls himself “homosexual” or “gay” is very unlikely to be chaste. Studies of homosexuals show that the actions themselves are what end up defining the person. That is why it is very dangerous for young folk to be around homosexual adults as they may get sucked into a deviant lifestyle, which, at first doesn’t seem so bad.

 

[Lisa_N]

Brad:

I think we agree on most points. However, there are a few things here.

The 7 times more likely was studying non-married or unioned people.

Someone that calls himself “homosexual” or “gay” is very unlikely to be chaste. Studies of homosexuals show that the actions themselves are what end up defining the person. That is why it is very dangerous for young folk to be around homosexual adults as they may get sucked into a deviant lifestyle, which, at first doesn’t seem so bad.

In fact the lifestyle can seem glamorous and exciting. Late nights, lots of better living through chemistry, all of the sex you want and no strings attached. It makes perfect sense without the demands for monogamy that confused young males would take advantage of the opportunity to have a lot of anonymous or promiscuous sex. Sex is not what defines a ‘committed’ relationship in the homosexual community. I had a long chat with a homosexual psychiatrist whose clientele was mostly homosexuals (males). He said for them sex was ‘no big deal’ and for recreation. “Love” is who you’ll split a mortgage with. Promiscuity is not simply a factor of living in SF, it’s a reality in the (male) homosexual community.

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

In fact the lifestyle can seem glamorous and exciting. Late nights, lots of better living through chemistry, all of the sex you want and no strings attached. It makes perfect sense without the demands for monogamy that confused young males would take advantage of the opportunity to have a lot of anonymous or promiscuous sex. Sex is not what defines a ‘committed’ relationship in the homosexual community. I had a long chat with a homosexual psychiatrist whose clientele was mostly homosexuals (males). He said for them sex was ‘no big deal’ and for recreation. “Love” is who you’ll split a mortgage with. Promiscuity is not simply a factor of living in SF, it’s a reality in the (male) homosexual community.

Lisa N

And it is the separation of sex and love that our Holy Father has repeatedly told us is the source of our unhappiness in this world.

 

[Lisa_N]

Brad:

And it is the separation of sex and love that our Holy Father has repeatedly told us is the source of our unhappiness in this world.

Or as Christopher West said, “People are so starved for love they are willing to eat out of garbage dumpsters.”

Lisa N

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

Darn right, another CW anology, everyone is driving around with flat tires, it is the meaning of our sexuality, and Gods grace that helps us to inflate those tires, and drive those cars the way that they were meant to be driven.

 

[BlindSheep]

I really think it depends on the individual. Some here say homosexuals are irrational and unstable - well, if the man is actually unstable, he shouldn’t be a priest, and likewise if he is unable or unwilling to be celebate he shouldn’t be a priest. However, I do believe there are some men with SSA who are neither of these things and shouldn’t be prevented from becoming priests. If he is able to control himself, what is the problem? I think the scandals would not have happened without the generally liberal attitude toward sex (homo-or-hetero) in recent years.

 

[Heavenston]

Steve Andersen:

Sigh
At the risk of repeating myself
Homosexuality was removed from the standard manuals of mental health disorders decades ago.

Remember there are those who argue that celibacy is an abnormal behavior in healthy adults

It would be time well spent investigating how GAY Activists stormed the APA meeting to get this de-listed. It is quite an interesting case study in activism.